Texas on the verge of limiting academic freedom of climate scientists

Texas has become the epicenter of climate skepticism in recent months, and it’s here that a pivotal battle could play out in the next few months on the contentious issue.

First, some background. Texas has long been a natural home for climate skepticism given the number of large fossil fuel energy companies with headquarters or major offices in the state.

But the state’s prominence has increased recently, beginning with Rick Perry’s very skeptical comments on climate change. For better or worse, for many Americans Perry personifies Texas. Ergo, Texas = climate skepticism.

Perry has in fact long expressed skepticism in the state, and acted on it in 2007 by appointing an engineer, Bryan Shaw, to head the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Shaw is openly skeptical about the role of humans in climate change.

Since then I’ve heard rumblings about the TCEQ discouraging academics to openly use climate change in reports, but have not come across any hard evidence. Until now.

As my colleague Harvey Rice reported, Rice University oceanographer John Anderson was told he could not discuss sea-level rise and climate change in a chapter for the periodically published, TCEQ-funded “State of the Bay” report about the environmental state of Galveston Bay. The original chapter he submitted had the references removed.

Anderson was trying to point out that recent, measured rises in sea level were considerably higher than in the historical record, and that this could have important consequences for the bay.

Anderson pushed back against the censorship and spoke out and revealed the flap to Rice saying, “It’s not about the science. It’s all politics.”

Oceanographer John Anderson has taken a stand against the state of Texas. (Melissa Phillip/Chronicle)

It’s not a surprise that Anderson is speaking out. He’s a tenured professor at Rice who is in no financial danger. What’s more bold is the response of the Houston Advanced Research Center, a non-profit research center in The Woodlands.

The state of Texas pays HARC to put the State of the Bay report together. Although HARC was founded with a grant by businessman George Mitchell, it now subsists largely on state and federal grants. Dare it bite the hand that feeds?

Nevertheless, after private and tense negotiations broke down and Anderson went public, HARC vice president Jim Lester is standing behind the scientist. Lester said, “I think that we’re seeing an expression of the ideology of the TCEQ leadership.”

How this plays out will be interesting. It’s my understanding that HARC has told the state it can either scrap the State of the Bay report, or it can publish Anderson’s chapter anonymously. The ball is now in the TCEQ’s court.

I think this is a big deal. It’s the first case I (and others I reached out to Monday evening) know of in which Texas is overtly acting to suppress scientific inquiry regarding climate change. That would be a huge blow to climate scientists in the state.

“When are these people going to learn that trying to suppress research never works and is worse PR when it inevitably is revealed?” one Texas scientist wrote me.

The big question is whether this is a trend, or will the TCEQ back down? And will HARC see a decline in future state funding?

Cheering for human executions like the Roman mob
Cheering for the death of people who don’t have health insurance
Booing American soldiers serving in Iraq
Imposing the Cantor Doctrine depriving funds to victims of disasters
Promoting dirty, toxic air in Texas and the US
Standing in the way of improved US oil pipeline safety
Cutting back Texas public education funding to aid the wealthy
Attacking Social Security while the wealthy keep raking in the money
Champions of the Flat Earth Society
Invading Mexico to “save” it from American drug money
Denying proven scientific data to please the energy coporations

Again, a classic response from Republicans is to ignore the issue and say that you are promoting open borders. Health care? It’s expensive because of illegal aliens. Schools need funding? Get rid of undocumented children and we’ll have the best education in the world. Social Security? It’s getting drained by illegal immigrants. Voting? Illegals necessitate re-implementation of the poll tax (in the form of “IDs”). And on it goes….

Salt, the illegals ARE draining our education system dry, they are hurting our health care, your car insurance is higher because of the amount of uninsured unlicensed drivers(illegals) Sorry, but thats the truth, illegals are one of the biggest problems in this country and I cant for the life of me why people are so willy nilly to accept people into our country that have NO respect for our laws and culture. Yes I say culture because like it or not, we used to have some in Houston.

I think you mean the “P” Party – those smelley unwashed protestors who don’t know their arse from their toes.

Yes – you SHOULD fea the Tea Partiers – they (we) are the last true Americans and it is on our shoulders and by our bloodshed you are even allowed to spew forth your putrid accusations – which only describe yourselves.

What utter nonsense! For years, anyone who questioned MMGW, AGW, or ACC was censored and loudly shouted down. What we ended up with was a collusion of scientists who were only looking out for their next research grant and politicians with questionable goals, like Al Gore the Carbon Credit King.

Need proof? Look at James Hansen. As a NASA scientist he should be totally neutral. Instead he was at the heart of 1 of the largest data doctoring scandals the agency had, and then we found out he was accepting money from MMGW proponents in addisiton to his government salary. In plain language, it appears he was accepting bribes.

What’s really funny is that all the MMGW proponents have forgone any scientific method, and then they cry “Wolf” when anyo9ne questions them on it.

Adler, just which scientists were “shouted down” and “censored”? And as a NASA scientist it is not Hansen’s job to remain “neutral”. It is his job to do good science and report his findings. I don’t know many anthropologists who remain “neutral” concerning evolution or mathematicians who are skeptical of the pythagorean theorem.

You believe climate scientists have “forgone any scientific method” in their research?

That statement is ignorant and dis-respectful to all of us that have put in a decade or so of education to be recongized as experts in applying the scientific method (i.e., obtaining a PhD).

And all these implications by conservatives that climate science is published without critical review are really off-base. I have been an associate editor of a major scientific journal, and from my experience, the process is not at all like you think it is. All invovled in the review process, from the chosen anonymous peer reviewers to the associate and full editors, work very hard to review each paper critically and only publish credible and original work. I’ve never worked as hard since I graduated from grad school, as I have last year when I was an associate editor. It is a thank-less job that carries alot of responsibility. It is not easy and not corrupt.

Zack, when you go along with the pack and accept consensus as the only way, then “YES,climate scientists have “forgone any scientific method” in their research.”

When you use “the consensus of scientists” as your argument you’ve already lost it. Oh, and said consensus is not solely made up of climate scientists either.

One question you have to ask, which many AGW alarmists don’t, is “What if we’re wrong?” What if you have spent trillions of dollars on is essentially a fairy tale. This isn’t like losing a two dollar bet at the track, it is destroying entire industries for the sake of a theory.

Bill, you are confusing the science of climate change with the policies that some people propose to deal with it. The science is solid. The significance to human civilization and what we can really do about it is what is unclear.

Bill thinks that by weighing on the side of “what’s the big deal” every time GW comes up seems to feel expression of his nay sayer view will help tip the scales against actual observations and real science. He is in a state of constant confusion, no make that delusion by exclusion of any facts that might be uncovered on the subject. To coin a phrase there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Bill, the ability to repeat experiments, and the ability for other scientists to duplicate results, are both recognized as necessary portions of the scientific method. To this extent, scientific consensus IS a part of “real science.” If a lone scientist gets a miraculous, non-mainstream result supporting his hypothesis, but is unable to document this result to the extent that other scientists are able to duplicate his results, he has not adequately proven his hypothesis according to the rules of the scientific method.

Glenn, You are correct in what you describe and Hansen’s job. Unfortunately, Hansen did not follow your version. He ordered his staff to take NASA’s raw satellite data, none of which agreed with the previously doctored data, and alter it so it did. His staff made the further monumental error in that they did not save the original data. When it was discovered that only the docotred data was left, there was a huge s-storm over how to replicate the orignal data.

And justin, the science is not sound. 1st, you have ground station data that is suspect due to the majority of stations not being built/located to the required standards of isolation, so as not to be influenced by outside factors, or the loss of high latitude or altitude stations altogether. You have data being interpolated, better stated as fabricated, over hundereds of miles between stations that don’t even resemble the geographic area from which the data is missing. You have satellite data, that contradicts the ground station and fabricated data, being altered so that it matches. You have models that can’t reproduce historical weather, yet are claimed to be infallible as predicitve tools. You have the MMGW crowd trying to eliminate the Little Ice Age, the year without a summer, and even the horrible winters during the early part of the 20th century because this is the only way their models work. You have the NASA report showing the atmospheric CO2 doesn’t have the level of greenhouse effect that the MMGW crowd assumes buried. You have an EPA report showing that MMGW is not what it is claimed being buried. And, this is somehow claimed to be valid scientific method?

Eric, I agree. Surpression never works. The fact that there are people so motivated by political beliefs that they would attempt to silence scientists is a little shocking.

I think Jon Huntsman said it best: “When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science, Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position,” Huntsman told ABC News in August.

It is refreshing to know that the fundamentalists led by Palin, Bachman and Perry are a collective 0-3 in their quest for the Republican nomination.

Interesting you say “suppression never works” and then go on to say, “The fact that there are people so motivated by political beliefs that they would attempt to silence scientists is a little shocking.”

Isn’t that just what the left is doing, but with those who disagree with them? Just like you’re doing?

The things is, @Bill in Houston, the facts must be judged for themselves. Suppression of the publication of facts is what is being discussed here. People are welcome to spout whatever opinions the care to, but scientists, and anyone trained in critical thinking looks for the facts that either support those opinions or do not.

If you took the time to read the underling article you would have found two things:

1) In no way is Dr. Anderson claiming that these changes are due to human activity.
2) The specific data that have been censored are an increase in the rate of sea-level rise that was significantly higher than the historic record, but that would still have resulted in only a one meter rise in about 300 years.

These are facts that Dr. Anderson presents evidence for. Do you have evidence otherwise? If not, then I know how to evaluate your opinions.

Right on Brother Frank. It will be a lot easier to make us 50 out of 50 than to expend all of the unnecessary effort that would be needed to try to bring us up to being 1 out of 50. Give our “leaders” some credit for recognizing the obvious here and making a plan to accomplish that goal.

A good start would be to end all of the effort now wasted looking for dinosaur fossils and bones. Everyone knows that there were no dinosaurs on Noah’s Arch and so any notion that they ever existed is venturing into pure fantasy. And besides we could use all of the money now being spent on these fruitless efforts to build something that would really contribute to the furtherance of human kind, a one of its kind institution of higher learning headquartered right here in the great state of Texas, Creation U. If this effort could get underway real soon Rick Perry could point to it in his run for the Presidency as another of his great accomplishments.

Just pointing out the data seems fine to me. If the data shows that sea levels are higher than recent historical records AND this affects the state of Galveston Bay, it should be a factor in the report. It seems there is no reason to go into theories about the CAUSE of this, which is NOT directly observable and is the heart of the controversy.

Just go with the data and consequences, no need to speculate on the cause in this report.

Testing hypotheses is pretty much the entire point of scientific enquiry. It is not “directly observable” that smoking cause cancer, but a preponderance of scientifically based evidence supported this. This allowed doctors to suggest a corrective course of action (quit smoking) that led to reduction in cancer rates. Similarly, taking action to mitigate climate change can help to avoid the negative impacts that will occur. TCEQ are a bunch of Perry stooges who simply don’t want to anger his big oil corporate backers.

And since climate-change scientists have lied about their findings, who can trust them?

No, they haven’t. But those who oppose them for political reasons have.

What action is that, Eric?
What possible ACTION can humans take to “help” climate change?

The simplest and best solution is to simply reduce your energy usage. Drive on properly inflated tires, just as Bush43 asked you to do. Keep your car properly maintained, just as Bush41 asked you to do. Turn off lights when you don’t need them. Make fewer trips. Increase the insulation in your attic.

– make next car a hybrid or plug-in electric (mucho gasoline savings; payback in few years, faster when gas hits $5 & $6 & upwards per gallon (liter?) in next couple years);

– take advantage of a solar PV rooftop installation & operation program, esp. where a utility or vendor owns & maintains the system and you only pay a monthly fee (may be equal or lower than your current electric bill; some locales even allow you to sell your excess energy back to utility);

Bravo to John Anderson and HARC for standing up to political pressure! Dr. Anderson’s work is solid, based on years of field research. How can communities on the coast make smart growth decisions if agencies like TCEQ suppress the science about how the coast is changing?

funny – i bet your position in regards to climate change includes no formal education on the subject matter and is largely based on a handful of “scientists” who are hired directly by large oil and gas lobbies… you know, the one group of people whose denial of climate change ensures they continue to make BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars in profits.

i bet you believed the tobacco industry years ago when their “research” concluded no health hazards were associated with smoking. i mean, c’mon! who would no better then them!

And it is ridiculous to imply that research scientists shouldn’t be funded by federal money.

I’m guessing that since you are upfront about being a skeptic to climate change science, and you presumably live in Houston and are likely a conservative, there is a decent chance you are somehow connected to the energy industry. As am I. You know how many of the energy industry geoscientists were educated? Working on grants funded by the federal government. On topics you would probably think are wasting money. For instance, do you think learning about the velocity structure of the lower mantle or the tectonic evolution of the African Afar is worth millions of dollars? However, those federal grants supported many graduate students (and in turn the education of many undergrads). Many of those graduate students are now working profressionals in the energy industry, figuring out how to find and produce more oil, so your 401K can make more money. All thanks to the federal grant money for research “scientists” in academia.

And oh ya, being a climate scientist is probably the least attractive phsyical science in terms of the availablility (and recent trends) in federal funding. Your argument that implies fake scientists are churning out easy to write research papers on climate science in order to get rich on federal money and live the good life is laughable.

Other states and govt entities have censored, harassed and even fired AGW skeptics. It would be great if ALL data and ALL factors, natural and manmade, could be objectively condidered and studied. Unfortunately, many scientists and engineers from BOTH schools of thought have already established their positions and and will not consider any alternatives. When politics and money drive science, science is the loser. And, bad science, especially “politcal” science, usually leads to bad policy.

You realize that studies like Eugenics were once accepted and peer-reviewed, right?

That’s a classic “Guilt by association” fallacy. The problem with it can be seen immediately when rephrased thusly: You do realize that Stalin once took a bath, don’t you?

That a given method has been used (or not – you provide no evidence for your claim) to support a bad action does not invalidate the method, any more than the fact that Stalin took a bath means that you shouldn’t.

It is frustrating and discouraging how blatantly Perry’s administration is moving to kill Texas education at all levels. They are now moving to silence any scientists that do not speak in line with Perry’s political (financial) interests. Texas is going to experience a significant backlash as academics, educated people, and anyone with an open mind gets fed up with Perry’s Afghanistan-like policies and moves out. Texas will be left with plenty of labor, but no innovators.

They still spew saturated fat and cholestrol consumption a possible cause for heart disease despite the fact it’s been proved wrong over and over. You think GMO wheat is healthy for you? Google Wheat belly. Not exactly all that healthy for you yet they continue to promote them..

Same for Sun Scare that lead to widespread vitamin D deficiency just to cut down risk of getting ONE cancer when lack of vitamin D significantly raises risk of getting at least one of 18 different types of cancer including melanoma cancer.

“If the United States continues on its current path, and if China seizes the opportunity to be the leader by putting an honest price on carbon, it will probably mean second rate economic status for the United States for most of this century.”

welcome to the new texas{ dictator rick has spoken}if my children were still in school in texas i would consider moving to another state where they could learn true history of the usa and not be denied knowledge of the world.there is more than one side to an issue and we have seem to of lost our way. we as texan have lost just about all of our rights, tort reform took away our rights and did nothing to lower cost,, deregulation of utilities did nothing to lower rates{ they went up}changing history books in our schools makes our children dummies in the real world.texas has been brain washed by the republican party and everytime you vote for one of them you lose more of rights and they give them to corporations and the wealthy.

Some additional context: Anderson is pretty much the undisputed authority on process geomorphology as it pertains to the Gulf of Mexico. Google “The Formation and Future of the Upper Texas Coast”. And anyone who knows his personality knows that messing with him is not a prudent move. We’re not talking about a shrinking violet here (thankfully).

There are two issues here and I haven’t had time to research this to see how closely they are linked or represented: relative sea level rise, and its causes. As Anderson says, there is absolutely no doubt that relative sea level is rising, as seen from the upper Texas coast: anyone with functioning eyeballs can confirm that. The question is, how much is each cause contributing? Eric, I’m working inside a client facility and can’t take the time to research it this morning, and the reporting has been nonspecific as to *EXACTLY* what TCEQ has allegedly been trying to squelch here: is it solely Anderson’s content that discusses sea level rise? Or does it relate to assertions and/or speculations regarding causes of said rise? Or both? This is the essential question that must be answered before productive debate can ensue. Reading Harvey Rice’s piece last night, I wasn’t sure that he understood the difference (maybe he did, but if so, it wasn’t clear to me).

It helps when those who are irreparably damaging the state and, more emphatically, its reputation, get to control the mechanics and process of voting. Google voter suppression Texas if you’ve a very strong stomach; it’ll put a fire in your belly if you don’t have fudgesicles in your brain.

As a fellow scientist, I KNOW why ‘climate change’ (no longer ‘global warming’, I point out) is such a pariah, as a topic of discourse. It’s because SO MUCH BAD and ALARMIST ‘science’ has been shoved down our throats thourgh the last decade. The problem with climate scientists is that the climate really IS changing… unfortunately, it’s become a POLITICAL topic and not a scientific one at this point, with every Sierra Club liberal on the planet dogging it ad naseum… now, the fickle public is becoming bored with it all. They need something newer and sillier to worry them. Hey… how ’bout RICK PERRY AS PRESIDENT OF THE USA????

The EPA has openly stifled their own people, even ordering them not to research or speak on climate change. Yet, when one professor has his submission declined, saying they wanted him to speak on other topics, you cry censorship?

Besides, climate-change induced sea level rise is hogwash. The sea level change has been reasonably constant 2 mm per year since we started measuring it over a hundred years ago. Land subsidence (mostly due to groundwater extraction) is a much more important factor in moving shorelines on islands. The past 10 years have had a measurable DECREASE in sea level rise on a global level. Removing the references was good science because referring to accelerating sea level rise is flat-out wrong.

Ben, you are correct. Under Bush, the EPA was censored and limited on what they could say about climate change. But your second paragraph is just factually incorrect. Sea level rise has indeed be increasing due to climate change and the rates of eustatic rise are increasing as compared to the rates from any subsidence.

The efforts of the state to bend things the way the politicians want them to be started with the Bush administration. He was known to put the pressure on faculty and universities to teach what his administration decided should be taught or to lose funding. Ask any university literacy professor from that time. There were other areas, too. Bush started the do-it-the-way-we-say-or-face-the-consequences movement, and Perry has continued it.

Technically the state isn’t suppressing academic freedom. It’s suppressing relevant information in a state publication. If Mr. Anderson’s work wasn’t allowed to be printed in any academic journal (or this website for matter), then academic freedom would be suppressed.

This is really a tempest in a teapot. It’s not a shock that political agencies in the state or federal governments play politics with science. They can’t help it. Just a few days ago Eric posted about the politics in play at NASA. As long as Mr. Anderson’s view and data are allowed to be publicized, there isn’t much harm. The only harm is that once again a governmental agency looks stupid. But aren’t we used to that by now?

A few years ago while I was in graduate school a lady who was studying here because her husband had been transfered went on a rant about what a backwater state Texas was. Needless to say, I took some offense over her comments. Her rant eventually opened up my eyes to the fact that we’ve allowed a vocal minority to drag us into the 1800s and make us a laughingstock.

If so many people are as “fed up” with Perry as they say they are, then WHY DO YOU KEEP PUTTING HIM IN OFFICE? And please don’t use the “he was the lesser of two evils” BS, it doesn’t wash. Anyone would have been a better choice than this crook. Hopefully now that his pathetic run for the presidency is all but over, he’ll just disappear. But then again this is Texas and voters here seem uniquely adept at voting against their own best interests. He is killing this state and our reputation (or what’s left of it). We are quickly becoming the shining example of what other states wish to avoid being turned into.

Seriously?
.
And yet companies, jobs and economic opprotunities are flooding into Texas compared to almost all other states.
.
I’ll tell you what, here’s a whole bunch of homes in Detroit for $5,000. How hard would it be for you to leave this backwards state?
.http://www.houselocator.com/Michigan/Detroit/Homes.aspx?Page=4

I implore everyone bothering to read this article to read “State of Fear” by Michael Creighton. What it says about the global warming crowd and the bending of science to follow the money should chill every scientist and engineer. Loved how it pointed out that all the old retired guys in climate research are the ones speaking out against it (noting they are no longer beholden to prevailing orthodoxy/funding sources/”peer review” that serves not to broaden the discussion, but to constrict it to one view only.)

Not just entertaining, but the best researched fiction book I have ever seen. The bookmarks alone are worth the read. LOVED his final words at the end of the novel. I dare any mindless followers of climate science beyond mouthing platitudes\conventional wisdom to read that book and not have their minds opened or even completely changed.

Eric, I present the same challenge to you. Read the book, cover to cover, review the notes, and then report back. We’d love to hear your views then.

Also, even if true, 3 mm vs. 0.5 mm? Seriously? 3 mm/year suggests problems? Problems that require intervention? At that rate, the water level rise is around a foot in 100 years!?! Also, how much of that is natural variations, or any variety of other causal factors? This is non-problem looking for solution, and much of AGW appears to be. FOLLOW THE MONEY, and you will begin to understand…

As to climate scientists being in it for the money, you should check again. To quote from an article by someone doing work in the field:
“To sum up: climate research doesn’t pay well, the amount of money dedicated to it has been shrinking, and if the researchers were successful in convincing the public that climate change was a serious threat, the response would be to give money to someone else. If you come across someone arguing that scientists are in it for the money, then you can probably assume they are willing to make arguments without getting their facts straight.” (emphasis added)

“Texas Gov. Rick Perry has turned a blind eye to the damage this industry is causing to the environment and public health…. Texas also leads the nation in generating hazardous waste and is well known as a hazardous waste dump for our country. Our Texas Gulf Coast city of Port Arthur has received the Army’s VX nerve gas waste product and incinerated it at the Veolia waste treatment facility. A paper company’s waste pits, hidden in sand dunes under water for many years, contaminated the San Jacinto River and much of Galveston Bay with high levels of dioxin before anyone knew it was there.”

Eric, thanks for the link to your previous piece. I enjoyed it, and I’m glad to see that you read it with enough of an open mind to get the point(s).

Even for the realm of fiction, the book was very thought provoking.

I love the repeated point that models are not reality, and models that cannot even predict today’s reality with yesterday’s inputs, yet are regarded as scientific truth and made to be the reason for a policy that would require trillions (or quadrillions) to marginally reduce an unknown problem of unknown proportions is a terrible blight on mankind, when such monies could be used to fix real and known problems with far less effort.

Since what we KNOW about this topic actually fills a thimble, the proposed costs astronomical, and so much more needs to be understood and produced beyond the current G.I-G.O. climate models, this topic seems ripe for more and better study. Only when we have it right with certainty can we consider spending monies of such colossal magnitude, or ameliorating whatever effects occur. If we even can decide what the “right” level of temperature is necessary to try and stabilize at in our ever changing climate. For as in all global effects, what hurts some areas often helps others.

It is mankind’s continuing folly to think that he controls much of anything about this planet. My guess is that in the end analysis we are fleas on the dog of mother Earth (as my favorite comedian George Carlin used to say), whether we try to stop the tides, storms, weather, or climate change of any kind (global warming or cooling). To think otherwise is pure arrogance and nothing more.

Just the facts- Two points: 1) Climate change is not about what models predict. It’s about what is happening right now, on the ground across the world, verified by multiple data sets. 2) It is folly to believe that we can control long term global cooling or warming. The earth is in a constant state of change. But that change takes places over tens of thousands of years and is usually very gradual. The change that is occurring now is short term and man-made. It would be foolish to say we can’t control it if we are the ones causing it in the first place.

There is some information missing here. Mr. Anderson apparently has data showing the sea level is rising. A rising sea level should be a topic for an article titled ‘State of the Bay’. Did merely presenting data cause the censure or did Mr. Anderson wander into the man made global warming imbroglio? Can you fill us in Eric?

I believe it is telling that no mention is made other than to describe the censure as “…overtly acting to suppress scientific inquiry regarding climate change.” How about publishing Anderson’s article here?

It depends upon who the “peers” are. In Climategate, we have already observed efforts to suppress the “peers” who do not agree with the “consensus”. And, there are a considerable number of scientists and some of my fellow engineers who are quite familiar with the factors affecting the climate but are not considered “experts” in the field because they don’t have a publishing record or a “climate science” degree. Some of the most comprehensive and detailed studies of the complex system of processes affecting our climate have been by chemical engineers who are almost certainly not among the “peers”.

Ha! John calling the TCEQ “all about politics” is certainly the pot calling the kettle black. John is a well known global warmist and politically motivated scientist when it comes to the dogma of AGW. To insist only his opinions get published while no rebuttals and critiques are offered to the contrary is not science as I know it.

What rebuttals? What critiques? This is the central problem with the entire denialist argument – if you have a legitimate, competing theory on climate change, then for God’s sake come out with it already! It’s as if the rest of the scientific community must stop and wait for denialists to catch up and cook up some new BS explanation for why GASTAs are increasing, sea levels are rising, and glaciers are disappearing. Every theory outside of AGW has serious, easily recognizable flaws, and as a result we’ve had to wade through hundreds of claims suggesting that everything under (and including) the sun has caused climate change – yet not one of these theories has withstood scrutiny the way AGW theory has.

If you know something the rest of the scientific community doesn’t, then publish it and let’s talk. Until then, calls for “balance” are just ludicrous – there’s no sound science on the other side with which to balance!

Those data sets used in the graphs I linked to are from peer reviewed paleoclimatic research, check it out, I even peer reviewed some of them. As a paleoclimatologist, I am familiar with the data and the interpretations of same. Looking at a few decades, or the last century, or few hundred years is like trying to diagnose an elephant dying of a gun shot wound by looking at the fleas on its’ posterior. Why only look at a tiny, les than 1/10th of 1% of geologic time when the whole record and date set is available? Because it doesn’t fit your political agenda? Indeed. You have to look at a much larger data set to see how miniscule man’s CO2 is compared to the huge effects of Milankovitch cycles, the true and only drivers of climate change on earth, not CO2, which has never been and is not the primary climate change factor. And when looking at the Gulf Coast, a sinking, subsiding coastline, special factors are also in play here, not human CO2, it is tiny compared to the real causes of sea level change.

And I understand John wants to have his opinions expressed, the problem is this is not a newspaper Op/Ed battle, it is science, and science does not run by allowing only one person to express an opinion. If he wants to slant his interpretation to find human CO2 guilty and the cause of sea level rise along the Gulf Coast, the true data also should be shown to indicate how uncertain and problem-prone that interpretation is. Should the TCEQ only publish one opinion of such a politically charged issue?

I’m not a scientists, but I believe it is ridiculous (and sad) to censor any type of data or fact. Research should NOT be done to sway ANYONE. It should be done to educate and provide a way to respond to certain issues.

This non-story will get amplified well beyond it’s weight by having even the hint of suppression. Hansen got the same undeserved microphone by simply having NASA explain to him that you speak for yourself and your research, and not everyone in the space agency. And to quit acting as though that his personal viewpoints acted as the final word of all of NASA, an agency who’s word is normally considered authoritative on many topics. Man, did he love playing the victim\suppression card! To the hilt…

Of course, Hansen then went on to a jihad well beyond anything in science or scientific method, and that helped to self-refute nearly anything he ever did that may have had merit. What is it about MMGW\AGW that drives it’s believers to such ends? Aren’t what facts are clear and the possible outcomes enough make an argument, even with their attendant doubts and large unknowns? Why do they always have to massively oversell?

This isn’t censorship. It’s editing. The man is wrong. There has been no acceleration in global sea level rise. It has been rising at 2mm per year for well over a century. Anticipation of accelerated sea level rise is pure conjecture and hypothesis that is contradicted by observation. You can’t argue with raw data.

I posted a link to a graph that shows that global sea level rise is not accelerating. Counter my point or shut up. Otherwise, you are the denier. Denying basic facts that disagree with your hypothesis is wrong. Disagreeing with a conclusion reached by a political body is right.

“Outside a few starting years around 1930, global sea-level reconstructions robustly show a modern acceleration of sea-level rise in conjunction with global warming.”

“As Houston & Dean state in their final sentence, we indeed predict a much larger acceleration of sea level rise in the 21st Century than is observed in the 20th Century. That is a direct logical consequence of the fact that we expect much larger warming in the 21st than in the 20th.”

Past time for cherry-picking anti-science deniers like Watts & co. (should we include you?) to get with the up-to-date climate science & the already available solutions at hand.

“On either side of 4 million miles of roads, the U.S. has approximately 60 million acres (90,000 square miles) of right of way. If 10 percent the right of way could be used, over 2 million MW of roadside solar PV could provide close to 100 percent of the electricity consumption in the country. In California, solar PV on a quarter of the 230,000 acres of right of way could supply 27% of state consumption.”

Since you claim to be a scientist — forget for the moment that it was for the big oil & mining industries — we’d expect that you’d be sufficiently curious & clear-headed to want to hear what respected Texan climate scientists have to say about this immoral suppression of science by Gov. Perry’s big oil administration.

Everyone should read the redacted article; it is definitely eye-opening. For example, the politicos decided to change this:

“The same thing is currently happening along the south shore of West Bay where bulkheads have been constructed at the edges of the wetlands and development has been allowed to fill and build on wetlands through a regulatory permitting process”

into this:
“The same thing is currently happening along the south shore of West Bay. Bulkheads have been constructed at the edges of the wetlands and wetlands have been developed as authorized through a regulatory permitting process”

Notice how the tone shifts from one where the damage being done to the wetlands is implicitly acknowledged to one where the wetlands are an impediment to progress? The document is full of such politically-minded emendments.

Facts!, whose facts? Mankind has only a few thousand years of written records and scientific measurements for only a few hundred years. With “our” facts relating to the written data, we barely have weather trends, much less climate changes. The interpretation of archeology and geology findings are at best only of a consensus nature until some “new” data sends it into a “new” direction. Yes, the water is rising and it is getting hotter; but why? Did the flea on the back of the dog cause this or is this the results of a different source of which we have even less measured data to reference? Mankind certainly has an impact on his fellow man but I don’t see much evidence of our achievements after nature has swept away our little monuments. Let the scientist print their data and take “with a grain of salt” their interpretations (findings). We swallowed the “Freon” fraud to no avail and now they are trying to force CO2 down our throats. Yet the volcanoes (uncontrollable) eject more CO2 each year than decades of all mankind (but the trees like it!). Why strangle our economy, our culture or our society with these silly emotional tantrums (the sky is falling!), when we all want to live in the best ecology possible. God Bless Texas

Volcanoes emit around 65 – 319 million tons of CO2 every year. The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use emit 30 billion tons of CO2 a year. In other words, human activities account for 100 times the CO2 emissions as volcanoes do annually.

At last, the so-called free-thinking ‘scientists’ who drink the global warming kool-aid are finally being told to knock off the ginned up faux stats and miscalculated calculations and do some real scientific research (which will demonstrate that AGW is a Gore Fairy Tale). And it upsets them, since they have so much invested (like Gore and Soros, et al) in ‘green’ business. AGW is nonsense and hogwash and humbug!

“The new data from a team of 11 scientists provide more evidence that climate change is having a broad and significant impact, independent of other human activities such as logging and development.

“And while the study focused on Western North America, scientists say the global temperature rise is likely affecting all the world’s forests – from the Northern boreal to the Eastern hardwoods to the tropics – to some degree.“

“Because mortality increased in small trees, the overall increase in mortality rates cannot be attributed solely to aging of large trees. Regional warming and consequent increases in water deficits are likely contributors to the increases in tree mortality rates.“

“Chris Potter from NASA Ames Research Centre and his colleagues from the California State University and Planetary Skin Institute … found that net primary production in Amazon forest areas declined by an average of 7% in 2010 when compared with 2008. This represented a loss of CO2 uptake by vegetation and potential Amazon rainforest growth of nearly 0.5 Pg C in 2010.”

“The greenness levels of Amazonian vegetation – a measure of its health – decreased dramatically over an area more than three and one-half times the size of Texas and did not recover to normal levels, even after the drought ended in late October 2010,” says Liang Xu of Boston University and the study’s lead author.”

As Ben notes above, this isn’t censorship, it’s editing. Man-caused global warming or climate change is a hoax created to scare the world into shifting energy production to means controlled by General Electric and the Al Gore crowd. Enron went belly-up when the U.S. didn’t immediately buy it.
I hate to explain this to the esteemed professor, but if TCEQ paid for the report, they have every right under the sun to edit it any way they bloody well want to.

Let’s be careful. Man-made global warming is a valid scientific conclusion. It may be erroneous, it is definitely exaggerated, and the data is certainly not as clear-cut as people say. However, calling it a Hoax is going a bit far, I think.

Enough with the smearing of Al Gore, that whole meme is really tired. I’ll be waiting if you want to bring us proof that global warming is a hoax. For starters, you might want to go back a hundred years or so and disprove that little thing called the greenhouse effect. You do that, and you’ve just made yourself millions. Then people who do not know you will go on the internet and trash you for a change.

Thank god Rick appointed these bureaucrats to TECQ who think more radiation is our drinking water is good, polluted air is fine to breath, and the oceans will are not rising. I would rather trust a bunch of bureaucrats with political science degrees then scientists who have actually studied the subject.

These reductions were accomplished by the TCEQ. If the Ozone limit hadn’t been reduced, Houston would have been in full Clean Air Act Compliance since 2009.

Also, the question isn’t about whether oceans will rise. They’ve been rising at 2 mm per year over the past century. This is about them removing incorrect references to accelerating sea level rise, which is not supported by measurements.

This is about them removing incorrect references to accelerating sea level rise, which is not supported by measurements.

You really need to read the redacted report; they removed a lot more than you think and changed even more. As to the measurements that are given in the article, they included the references showing where the measurements that support them came from (see page 9).

The forests are expanding? Wow, Ben….incredible…..ever seen what the rainforests look like from space? I suggest you take a look –

Forests are NOT expanding moron….

I’m not saying eliminate all corporations – but we need to understand this and recognizne that it is a problem….and forests are NOT expanding….once again someone with half the truth and none of the time to research…..

Easy there, fella…N. America has never had more forested land in the last 60,000 yrs or so. This is due to fire suppression, water conservation, managed timber harvesting and concentrated agricultural methods. Most of the reforestation, or better yet, the reclamation of re-forested land, has occurred since the 1940s.

re: “N. America has never had more forested land in the last 60,000 yrs or so.”

Easy on the misinformation, elowe, best check your facts first.

“It is estimated that in 1630 the area of forest land in the United States was 1,037 million acres …. Since 1630, about 286 million acres of forest land have been converted to other uses—mainly agricultural…. In 2007, forest land comprised 751 million acres, or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States Forest area has been relatively stable since 1910.”

Yes, I think that the climate models are correct. But I don’t think that the trillions of dollars will be well-spent, as most of the methods for fixing the problem are either non-economic (e.g., moving to a WWS economy) or untried (e.g., orbiting sunshades) or of limited use (e.g., ocean seeding).

We would be far better off working to reduce the current use (e.g. increase use of hybrids, improve home energy efficiency) while increasing our use of truly green alternatives such as nuclear and space-based solar power.

Of course not Bill. The made-up, manipulated, GIGO computer games mean absolutely nothing in science. And far less when it comes to any policy actions, somethng the DC majority knows well these days, just look at the “actions” on policy we have, eh?

Computer models and computer projections based on same, of any kind, especially the ones manipulated by politically motivated climatologists, are not TRUTH. That is not how science works, if you are really a scientist JohnD (doubtful) you would know that.

You are the one who brought up “truth” in the context of computer models being used for climate science, here: “But then, given tghat(sic) you seem to delight in making things up, you may not see how other people could prefer to tell the truth.” And to restate, a real scientist would know the difference.